ORAL ORDER

1. By way of the present application the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:-

“6(A) Your Lordships be pleased to admit this application;

(B) Your Lordships be pleased to grant permission to file the aforesaid appeal against the judgment and order passed by 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.59 of 2022 dated 4.11.2023;

(C) Your Lordships be pleased to grant any such other and further relief as may be deemed just and proper, in the interest of justice;”

2. Heard learned advocate Ms.Hetvi Sancheti for the applicants and learned advocate Mr.Mahesh Bariya for the respondent.

3. Learned advocate Ms.Hetvi Sancheti submitted that the applicants have challenged the judgment and order dated 04.11.2023 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Navrangpura at Ahmedabad in Civil Misc. Application No.59 of 2022 granting letter of administration of the suit property bearing Survey No.74/2 of 2022 and Survey No.74 situated at Kune Nama, Taluka: Maval, Dist. Pune.

3.1 It is submitted that the applicants were held to be tenant of the suit properties under Section 32-O of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1998. The applicants were granted certificate under Section 32-M of the said Act and Entry No.3558 of 2016 was mutated in the Revenue Record. It is further submitted that the applicants are tenant of the suit properties and by granting letter of administration in favour of respondent, applicants are aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order. It is submitted that the applicants were not made party to the proceedings being Civil Misc. Application No.59 of 2022.

Hence, request is made to grant leave to file Appeal.

4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Mahesh Baria for the respondent has objected and placed reliance upon the contentions mentioned in the Affidavit-in-reply dated 30.07.2024. It is contended that the learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has dismissed the order declaring the applicants as tenant and when the competent revenue authority has terminated the revenue proceedings, the applicants cannot be said to be aggrieved party since the applicants have no right and or interest in the suit property.

5. In Re-rejoinder, learned advocate Ms.Sancheti submitted against the order dated 04.01.2022 passed by the learned Administrative Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune in Revision Application No.P/III/4/2016, a Review Application No.P/III/2/2022 is pertaining by present applicant, a Stay Application was also made part of the Review Application, wherein on 10.06.2022, In- charge Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune has stayed the operation of the order dated 04.01.2022.

5.1 Learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the order dated 10.06.2022 was for a limited period and he needs to verify as to whether the Stay which was granted by learned Member of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Pune, is still in force or not, be that it may.

6. I have heard the contentions and averments made in the application together with the Affidavit-in-reply filed by the Opponent, it transpires that the applicants were not made party in the original proceedings being Civil Misc. Application No.59 of 2022, wherein the order of letter of administration was granted on 04.11.2023 in favour of the opponent. The revenue proceedings initiated before the learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal also reveals that the applicants were declared as a tenant under the provisions of Bombay Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and a Certificate under Section 32M was issued in favour of the applicants. Even the mutation entry was recorded in the revenue record being Entry No.3558 of 2016. The decision by Competent Revenue Authority terminating the tenancy proceedings is under the review before the learned Memeber of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune. Since the issue is pending between the parties before the Revenue Authority, at this stage, I am of t